The outcome we arrive at depends on the process and is ultimately influenced by the process. We cannot hope to host a process that is equitable while intentionally leaving people out and making decisions about their lives. This is a paternalistic method because a decision about what is best for other people without asking them what they need. I’ve seen this throughout my career in the large and small moments of organizational development and maintenance. The ends don’t justify the means.
I know that we’ve been led to believe that they do. But if the process you choose to make a decision leads to the dissolution of trust then the endpoint is weakened no matter how profound or meaningful it might be.
Tema Okun and Kenneth Jones point out in their list of characteristics of white supremacy culture, paternalism is a cornerstone of white supremacy culture. I believe that patriarchy plays a big role here as well due to the sense of domination that is inherent in paternalism. Okun & Jones point out that paternalism is identified by the following characteristics:
- those holding power control decision-making and define things (standards, perfection, one right way)
- those holding power assume they are qualified to (and entitled to) define standards and the one right way as well as make decisions for and in the interests of those without power
- those holding power often don’t think it is important or necessary to understand the viewpoint or experience of those for whom they are making decisions, often labeling those for whom they are making decisions as unqualified intellectually, emotionally, spiritually, or physically
- those without power understand they do not have it and understand who does
- those without power are marginalized from decision-making processes and as a result, have limited access to information about how decisions get made and who makes what decisions; at the same time they are completely familiar with the impact of those decisions on them
- those without power may internalize the standards and definitions of those in power and act to defend them, assimilate into them, and/or collude with those in power to perpetuate them in the belief that this will help them to belong to and/or gain power; they may have to do this to survive
These characteristics run rampant in rigidly hierarchical organizations. When we adhere to the organizational chart without question then we further entrench these characteristics. There is an assumption by the people at the top of the chart that the people below don’t know enough or don’t have a broad enough view to make a proper decision. The people who are making the decisions may have risen through the ranks and they assume they know what it’s like the lower down the chart because “they have been there.” They know what it’s like to sit in those positions without power. This ignores the realities of the present and biases these perspectives (and the decisions made) to the context of 20 or 30 years ago.
So what do we do about this?
If that paternalistic hierarchy is entrenched then there may seem like there isn’t much to do. But Frederick Douglass told us that “power concedes nothing without a demand.” So what do we demand?
These decision-making processes need to be open and understood throughout an organization. Transparency is preventative. I try to keep this in mind when I’m in a position to make decisions and invite critique and feedback (I have room to grow here too as I know I have failed at this). We can also ensure that these decisions are made in conjunction with the people who will be impacted by the decision.
Okun offers us some antidotes to paternalism as well that include creating a culture of appreciation for the way that everyone contributes, education about how power operates for everyone involved (including those who hold it), recognizing that every decision will have unintended consequences, and many more.
adrienne maree brown’s Emergent Strategy also provides a way to address how we think about decision-making. She says “How we are at the small scale is how we are at the large scale.” Meaning our organizations, our workplaces, are not created by the big moments. They’re created and recreated every day by the small moments we have with each other. The check-in conversations and the relationship development all matter to the big stuff. If you’re concerned about how your organization works together, you have to consider the small things.
It is beyond time to reconsider how we wield power when we hold it and what we do when we don’t. It makes sense that we don’t know what to do with power. We generally don’t talk about power in the US and how it works. We don’t connect the labor union movement and the Southern freedom movement to collective power building.
The ends don’t justify the means. We know that paternalistic decisions disconnect us from one another by refusing to engage with those who will be affected. Create spaces where you can appreciate what people bring to the table, where everyone is aware of how a decision will be made and how the decision was made once it happened. Consider what power you have in your space in the organization and help those around you understand their power as well.